The Victorian Electoral
Commission used this slogan in its advertising campaign to
encourage Victorians to vote at the State elections on 30th November 2002.
This slogan is much more appropriate to a proportional representation system
than to the "winner-take-all" system that applied at those
elections, as generally only half the votes cast in a winner-take-all
election count towards electing anybody.

At Victoria’s
first PR Legislative Council polls in 2006 (an outcome of the 2002 polls),
the quota for election in the 8 Upper House regions to replace the 11 former
provinces will be 16.7% of the vote rather than 50%. The 5 MLCs per region
will each need a separate 16.7% of the vote, so 83% of voters will shape the
Council, not just the old 50%. It can never be "every vote", but
83% is much closer than 50%.

Results, on our Web site above, of the PR Analysis of the Lower House,
based on 7 and 9-member districts, showed

%

ALP

Liberal

Green

National

Other

Votes

47.9

33.9

9.7

3.8

4.7

Seats

70.5

19.3

0.0

7.9

2.3

PR Seats

51.1

34.1

9.1

3.4

2.3

The PRSAV-T’s PR Analyses of Victorian Upper House
polls since 1996, on our Web site, are based on two notional 11-member PR
provinces, as that being the most exact way to use the existing data from the
22 single-vacancy provinces extant until 2004. The new 5-member regions will
not give such a close degree of proportionality. A summary of the 2002 Analysis appears on the PRSA website.

The most striking feature of the analysis is, as usual, the gross
over-representation of the party that wins most seats. This occasion is
special in that, for the first time, the party is one that, although benefiting
this time, has understood the inherent defects of the system, has been
granted the parliamentary numbers to reform it, and has done so.

An ironic feature of the analysis is the estimate for what the make-up of
the full 2002 Council had the non-Labor parties, which had a majority of MLCs
from 1999 to 2002, realized the likelihood of a PR system soon and had worked
constructively with Labor to introduce one. If they had advocated large
regions and succeeded in maintaining rotation of elections, they might have
been rewarded with an Upper House without Labor’s present absolute
majority!

Victoria's Upper House is Reformed

Following Victoria’s
State elections on 30th November 2002, the re-elected Labor Government had a substantial
majority in the Legislative Assembly and, surprisingly, a majority of six in
the Legislative Council. Thus for the first time in its history of over 100
years the Labor Party had majorities in both houses sufficient to pass
legislation amending any part of Victoria’s Constitution Act 1975.

Before the election, the Labor Party had laid out a policy to reform the
Legislative Council, whose key features were implementation of the July 2002
recommendations of Victoria’s Constitution Commission (see QN2002D) to,
among other things, "ensure the Legislative Council is democratically
elected and becomes an effective, hard working house of review by:

introducing
Senate-style proportional representation,

creating new
multi-member electorates to provide fair representation for all,
including rural Victoria,

reducing the term of
MLCs from eight to four years, concurrent with Legislative Assembly
terms, and

introducing fixed
four year terms in both houses."

Aware that reform of Victoria’s Legislative Council was
now not only possible but imminent, the PRSA’s Victoria-Tasmania Branch
produced a detailed letter with several extra sheets highlighting our
detailed arguments about desirable aspects of any reform. In December, the
Secretary, Dr Stephen Morey, and Treasurer, Geoffrey Goode, visited the new
Member of the Legislative Council for Higinbotham Province, Noel Pullen, and
presented him with a draft copy of the letter and summary sheets. Ironically
it was his narrow victory that had given the Government sufficient numbers in
the Upper House to pass constitutional amendments.

On election night, it was clear that the Government would hold 23 of the
44 Upper House seats. With a Labor MLC as the President, that would leave the
Government 22 members, which would not of itself be the absolute majority on
the floor of the House required to amend the Constitution Act 1975. Mr
Pullen’s election, unconfirmed until a few days afterwards, ensured
that absolute majority. Labor subsequently won another very close contest in WesternPortProvince
to give it 25 of the 44 seats.

After that successful meeting with Mr Pullen, the Council of the
Victoria-Tasmania Branch revised the letter and summary sheets, and posted
them to every member of the Victorian Parliament. The letter stressed three
key points:

All Members of
Parliament should be directly elected by the people and,
as a consequence, voters alone should decide who would fill casual vacancies,
not party machines or anybody else.

The Upper House
reform should ensure that voters choose not only their preferred party,
but also their preferred representatives from within that party. The
PRSAV-T strongly supported the Hare-Clark system
ahead of the Senate-style PR proposed under Labor policy.

The Upper House
reform should be protected by entrenchment, so that any amendments to
the reform can only occur with the approval of the people, at a
referendum.

PRSAV-T members also wrote letters and opinion pieces for
the local media, particularly The Age in Melbourne. A few letters were published,
but the media as a whole showed little or no interest in the reform of the
Upper House.

On 26th February 2003, the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Bill
2003 was introduced into the new Parliament. It was the second Bill in
the new Parliament, and three members of the PRSAV-T Council; the President
(Dr Lee Naish), the Treasurer (Mr Geoffrey Goode) and Mr Geoffrey Lutz; were
present in the Legislative Assembly gallery while the Premier was introducing
the Bill.

The Victoria-Tasmania Branch of the PRSA scrutinized the Bill, which
contained a number of positive features. The Branch was very pleased that the
new electoral system was to be a quota-preferential PR system, and were
pleased that, for ‘below-the-line’
voting, voters would only have to express as many preferences as there were
vacancies. The third very positive aspect of the Bill was the effective
entrenchment of proportional representation, so that it could not be revoked
by an absolute majority of the Parliament alone.

The entrenchment provisions are complex. Provisions for multi-member
electoral regions, and a fixed term of Parliament, can only be amended by a
referendum. Others, such as those for the filling of casual vacancies,
require a special majority of 60% of the two houses in a joint sitting.

The Victoria-Tasmania Branch was,
however, concerned at a number of aspects of the new bill:

(a) Casual vacancies were to be filled by party appointment, where the
political party that the vacating member had stood for at his or her election
would submit the name of a person to a joint sitting of Parliament to appoint
that person to fill the vacancy. The Parliament would have to appoint someone
that was a member of, and nominated by, the party with the same name as that
shown as the vacating member’s party on the ballot-paper at the
previous general election. In line with a Constitution Commission recommendation,
if an independent were elected, and then resigned or died, the Parliament
would have to replace that MP with someone that had not been a member of any
political party for at least 5 years, with that person’s appointment
requiring a 60% vote of MPs at a joint sitting.

PRSAV-T members were disturbed by this provision as it would lead to the
presence in Parliament of non-elected members - for the first time in Victoria since
responsible government began in 1856. It was particularly disappointing that
the Government rejected countback
for casual vacancies, which the Premier and his Government had accepted as an
amendment by Craig Ingram to a 2002 Bill passed by the Assembly, but not the
Council.

(b) Senate-style PR, with an above-the-line option, was to be introduced, leading to
party control over the order that candidates are elected, and ensuring that
most Legislative Councillors were in ‘safe seats’

(c) The PRSAV-T regretted the choice of eight electoral regions each
electing five members. Victoria’s
Constitution Commission had recommended seven-member electorates as a better
option, as the PRSAV-T also preferred.

(d) There were several more, quite subtle, flaws in the Bill. As the Bill
was written, political parties might have been able to submit Group Voting
Tickets (for the above-the-line part of the ballot-paper)
expressing only 5 preferences. That would have led to large numbers of
exhausted votes.

After the introduction of the Bill, at a
meeting with the Government Leader in the Upper House, Hon
John Lenders, the PRSAV-T raised its concerns, but Mr Lenders was
firmly of the view that the Government had a mandate to introduce the Bill as
proposed. He pointed out that the ALP had been working towards this reform
for over 20 years.

Mr Lenders did however agree to investigate our concern about Group
Voting Tickets, raised by our President, Dr Lee Naish. The Government
subsequently amended the Bill to overcome those concerns. Mr Lenders also
admitted that the provisions for filling casual vacancies might need to be
revisited in the future, particularly those for Independents or where a party’s
name had been changed. Sadly those concerns were not addressed during the
Bill’s passage.

We also held a successful meeting with
an Independent member of Victoria’s
Lower House, Craig Ingram. Craig has been a most consistent supporter of
democratic reform in Victoria
since his election in September 1999. When the Bill was debated, he spoke
very strongly for countback and
moved an amendment to introduce it. The amendment was supported by the other
Iindependent, Russell Savage MLA, but was opposed by all Party MLAs and thus
not carried.

Although we were unable to meet the
Liberal Party Leader, Mr Robert Doyle MLA, the Branch did meet with the
Liberal Leader in the Upper House, Mr Phil Davis. The meeting was friendly,
but it was clear that the Opposition had decided to simply oppose all reform
of the Legislative Council, rather than to examine the issues and make
suggestions to improve the Bill. None of our concerns were supported by any
of the Legislative Councillors from the Opposition, all of whom spoke in the
debate, except that Mr Davis stated that he had met Lee
Naish and Geoffrey Goode as representatives of the PRSAV-T, and noted the
logic of the Society’s advocacy of direct election of all MLCs via countback,
but did not, on balance, support it.

The Opposition
made some interesting comments, including one by the former Opposition
Leader, Hon. Denis Napthine, suggesting the abolition of the Upper House. The
Government’s response to the Opposition was that it had had many
opportunities to contribute earlier to meaningful debate, but by its refusal
had forfeited any right to help shape the final legislation.

In his second reading speech, the
Premier, Mr Bracks, said, "One of the most important cornerstones of our
way of life in Victoria
is our system of Parliamentary democracy. Since coming to office, this
Government has taken many steps to make Victoria a leader in open and accountable
government ... The Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Bill 2003 is no
different. The momentous initiatives in this Bill will bring our Parliament
into line with other States and ensure that Victoria has the strongest possible
democratic safeguards."

The Bill was debated in the Legislative Assembly in March, and passed
(with the amendment advocated by the Victoria-Tasmania Branch) on 20th March
2003.

The Bill was then introduced to the Legislative Council where it was
passed on 27th March 2003. There are six Australian bicameral parliaments,
and henceforth, in each of them, general and periodic elections in one of
their two houses will use the quota-preferential proportional representation
system.

There are now seven legislative chambers in Australia whose members, apart
from members filling casual vacancies in four of them, will owe their
election to gaining a multi-member quota of votes under that system.

Threat of 6-Member ACT Electorates Averted

Following the June 2002 recommendation by the Standing
Committee on Legal Affairs to increase the ACT Assembly to 21 MLAs (see QN2002B),
Labor MLA John Hargreaves publicly argued his minority view for at least 23. A
smaller number would leave the Executive too dominant within the governing
party. The Government’s official preference was for five electorates
each returning five members.

In August, the Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, introduced a bill delaying
for six months the redistribution process that normally begins soon after a
year into a term. It was passed a month later amid hopes that strong-enough
agreement could be reached on an increase for the Territories Minister to
accede to a request from the Assembly.

The Territories Minister, Hon. Wilson Tuckey MHR, can change the size of
the Assembly by regulation, but only upon the advice of the Assembly. He was
said to be sceptical about a need for an increase, and to regard the extent
of Assembly agreement as a factor in his decision.

In mid-September, Australian Democrats MLA Roslyn Dundas alleged that the
Liberal and Labor parties would be supporting an increase to 23 members, in
three electorates of six members and one of five. They would jointly have the
two-thirds of the Assembly required to depart from having odd numbers of
vacancies in each electorate.

Discussions had taken place among MLAs, but Opposition Leader Gary
Humphries denied that a deal had been struck. He would prefer 21 MLHAs, but
had not ruled out 23 spread over four electorates. Small quotas with nine or
more MLHAs per electorate would let crackpot parties be elected.

The parliamentary Liberal Party expelled Mrs Helen Cross MLA in the same
week, and she resigned from the Liberal Party amid extensive publicity. A
week later, the Chief Minister introduced a motion seeking agreement that the
size of the Assembly be increased to 25, and that he communicate such a
decision to the Commonwealth Government with a view to regulations being made
by 31st March 2003.

The Government sought urgent passage of its motion, but Mrs Cross’s
absence through illness led to a delay of the debate until November. ACT
Branch Convenor Bogey Musidlak wrote a short opinion piece for The Canberra Times about the most
appropriate size of the Assembly, which showed how differences in voter
support had been better reflected in the 7-member Molonglo electorate,
whereas in the 5-member electorates the second-strongest party had
consistently secured 40% of the seats with around 30% of first preference
votes. Even a 15% gap in first preferences in the 5-member Ginninderra
electorate in 2001 narrowly failed to be translated into a difference in
seats.

As a long series of exclusions typically occurs at the start of ACT
scrutinies, newcomers would generally find greater success in reaching a
12.5% target than one just below 16.7%. Allowing for leadership factors,
women had obtained a higher percentage of the vote in the Molonglo
electorate, and their proportion elected there was higher.

Electorates of 7 members were superior, as swings of 2-3% can usually
change the party composition of MLAs, and solid competition is guaranteed
within major parties’ endorsed teams. It was therefore not surprising
that the ACT Electoral Commission and prominent Canberra academics all supported three
7-member electorates.

The article ended, "With five five-member electorates, a party with
30% of first preferences could hope for 10 MLAs but one with 40% support
needn't necessarily get any more. Seven-member electorates would clearly
reward such differences in support. Cynics might be excused for regarding the
Chief Minister's preferred option as a straw man opening the door for
something even worse. Of course, Tasmanian and Senate experience should
completely rule out six-member electorates, under which it’s common to
get half the seats with under 40% of first preferences, but impossible to get
a majority."

The PRSA’s ACT Branch remained concerned about the possibility of
6-member electorates as The Canberra Times kept referring to the
likelihood of a ‘compromise’ emerging. The Branch intensified its
efforts to demonstrate why 6-member electorates would be unsatisfactory, and
urged the Assembly to overhaul its procedures simultaneously with any request
for an increase in its numbers.

Meetings with several MLAs followed despatch of an initial letter that
included two-page information sheets on how outcomes in 7-member electorates
reflect voters’ wishes better, and why 6-member electorates should be
avoided (Senate and Tasmanian examples illustrated the key points).

In addition, drawing on the involvement of the people in shaping the
electoral system, the ACT Branch organized an information forum in early
November, securing the attendance of MLAs or other representatives from all
parties in the Assembly. A letter inviting Mr Tuckey noted that party boxes
had vanished with the unlamented d’Hondt system, and were specifically
excluded when the key principles were entrenched.

The agenda also left room for prominent Canberra identities and representatives of
organizations such as the Canberra Business Council, Unions ACT,
Women’s Electoral Lobby, the ACT Council of Social Service and
Community Councils to state their views. This helped attract radio and
newspaper publicity and extend public awareness and discussion of the options
before the Assembly.

On the day of the forum, the Leader of the Opposition, Gary Humphries MLA,
e-mailed, "My party indicated a willingness to consider other models and
arguments, but to date no convincing argument has yet appeared for an
Assembly larger than 21 members. Hence the Liberal Party's position remains
in favour of 21 members."

Mrs Cross would not state her views at the forum, and showed her
willingness too hear more detail of the Government’s arguments. That
gave a television opportunity for the PRSA’s ACT Branch of the PRSA to
state briefly briefly how seven-member electorates had performed better than
five-member electorates.

An irate Chief Minister, hearing that Mrs Cross would not support any
increase without a referendum, announced on 19th November 2002 that his
motion would not proceed. He attacked others for allegedly putting narrow
self-interest before the public interest, which demanded a large increase.

A media release stated that governments of eight or fewer MLAs
"cannot most effectively deal with the range and complexity of
contemporary administration. However, without general support in the Assembly
it is not possible to put the argument to the community, and Labor will not
move without community support. An increase to 21, as the Liberals want, will
not achieve the desirable result. All it would do is give us another Assembly
with an enlarged cross-bench of narrow-issue independents."

The ACT Branch promptly submitted another opinion piece to The Canberra
Times, welcoming the abandonment of the plan, and tracing how the ALP, in
the recent past a strong supporter of a small Assembly (a previous Chief
Minister recommended other legislatures consider reducing their size), or
moving more cautiously, had made a revolutionary departure with its proposal
for the second-highest percentage increase in any legislature since
federation.

The article noted that "30% or more of voters have tended to give
their first preference to someone from outside the Labor or Liberal party.
With five-member electorates, this pattern might translate into just one seat
(20%) as support for the weaker large party has been sufficient for it to
reach a second quota. It is far more likely to result in two seats (29%) of
seven, prompting politicians and aspirants to remain in touch with
constituents’ aspirations."

It concluded, "Three seven-member electorates would be with us for a
long time. They are sensitive to small shifts in voter opinion and do not
lend themselves to manipulation to slant outcomes. That is possibly why there
have been such strenuous efforts to avoid them."

The ACT Branch urged Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker to move her proposal for an
increase to 21, so it would register further in the public mind as the
natural size, even if rejected by the Commonwealth. It remains undebated on
the Notice Paper. Intentions of various parties are likely to be canvassed
before the October 2004 polls for 17 MLAs.